Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:
Jlay, I'd say you should put your pride aside and apologize to Nessa - it's the right thing to do..

And make that apology in 'The I dont have an accent' thread


you OWE me a voiced one

I dont get why nessas posts irk you jlay. And if they do, why you read them?

They are in the right forum, and I for one, like them. Its a chance to get to know posters, and its a good thing.

To be more charitable to jlay (sorry, Nessa, I know he offended you and I'm sorry he did, but I'm interested in having a bit of charity for a very long standing a highly appreciated board member), I, for one, have never used the Active Topics button. But I clicked it for fun, and a lot of stuff from General Chit-Chat did come up. Perhaps a simpler fix would be to adjust the Active Topics button so that it just doesn't bring up stuff rom the General Chit-Chat forum. That strikes me as appropriate precisely because this is intended to be an apologetic forum. Yes, the other lighter stuff is helpful to decompress and, frankly, just to get to know each other a bit better. But if the primary purpose of coming here is to become more acquainted with our faith and how to defend it--and I would expect everyone to agree that is the primary (not only) purpose--then it would seem counter-productive for a feature like Active Topics to bring up material unrelated to that purpose.

That's doubly true if that is the primary way you see what is going on around here.

Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with posting general chit-chat. But I do think it is worth exploring how we can explore ways to make sure that the main thing keeps being the main focus, that it is most obviously so, and that it is easiest to get to.

That's my $.02.

fdit: and to the mods, for those of you who took offense at the mod-swipe, I would encourage to consider PMing jlay and asking him what was on his mind when he said that. Maybe it's nothing. But maybe it is something, and maybe his perspective might help you be better at this volunteer work of yours that you rightfully take seriously. We can argue over whether or not he should have made the comment at all (or publicly), but I'd prefer here to deal with reality as it is. Or perhaps with reality as I see it.

Jac3510,
He offended me and you are sorry for that?
That sounds a bit subjective. That doesn't necessarily mean he did anything wrong
.

Yes, Nessa, I'm sorry he offended you. You can be bothered by that if necessary, I suppose. You can interpret my words as you feel compelled, but I said exactly what I meant, no more and no less.

Having said no more and no less, I'm not getting in the middle of that part of it. I'll say nothing more on that other that one I already offered, which was intentionally offered as an aside. The substance of my post was to address jlay's concern as I understood it. The aside was simply a nod to the obvious direction the discussion ended up going. Having offered that nod, I've no interest in further fueling any fires. I am, though, interested in jlay's original comments with regard to what, if any, issues he actually is raising. And, to that end, as I mentioned explicitly, I think the Active Topics button is somewhat problematic and, if possible, we should look at modifying it.

In short, I don't know that I agree that the policies around first posts should be changed as much as the functionality of the board, assuming anything needs to be changed at all. But that seems to me to be a reasonable discussion we ought to be able to have.

I move that this thread either be deleted or closed


j..

give it few days and the active thread page shall once again satisfy you

Wow, what a missile.

Personal attacks aside, I can understand the reasoning and see two sides.

How I see matters is like Logical Apologetics versus Relational Apologetics.
You're really not going to make headway on the former without the latter, especially with those who disagree.

Notice how the board has several women posters, in fact probably just as many as our men at this time.
Not to offend, but women are clearly more often relational and men are more in their head. Not all, but many.
And it isn't necessarily one or the other. Someone can be more intellectual, but relational. While another more relational, but also intellectual.
I'm just identifying a dichotomy if you will.

I'd say to those of us more in our heads shouldn't discount the value of lighter talk.
It is within the banter that pearls can be, respect and trust built which forms fertile foundations to have someone listen.

Nessa came here because she had questions, some doubts, and not necessarily the answers. She said something such when she first posted. And she has contributed in a way that she is comfortable relating and has put in more serious talk.
I believe she has added value and appeal to certain others who are more relational.
And if there was a target audience to present apologetics too, then DS may also be your target Jlay.
She is the one people like you, who do understand the arguments, need to be able to teach.
And she would probably have a greater impact getting the message across in a relational way.

Apologetics is about presenting a defense.
You can have the most powerful arguments, and everything down pat, but if no one cares to listen to your presentation then what wasted potential.

You know, I've found WLC and your top apologists often so off-putting in recent years, because they don't connect.
They rarely even connect with me any more. Plantinga knows how to connect. He's good. There are good Chrsitian apologists who do seem to connect.
But some others, just seem so impersonal and completely and utterly taken in by... I don't know, the culture of an intellectualism? Arrogance thereof. Putting on an exterior posture.

I'm mentioned Craig who I admire and respect, but trying to make a point.
Don't get me wrong, he seems nice enough and all. BUT, look at the start of any debate with how Craig handles his posturing. It is all "taught" posturing rather than real and authentic. Like he's a politician and can't show any authentic emotion, even when he's insulted by his opponent (which he often is). I'm sure Craig is also being authentic to himself, but in being so he's out of touch with ordinary people. Compare to someone like Krauss or Sam Harris, and Craig looses the relational war.
Case in point, I attended one the Craig vs Krauss exchanges in Australia, and even before the debate started heard whisper from a woman in front, something like, "you can tell who has more of a stick up their..."

What is missing is an authentic relational, down-to-earth, human vulnerability.
When you have this, you will connect better with others, feel others and treat others respectfully. And they will more likely listen to you.
THAT is something this forum has perhaps lacked a lot of in the past. And which is why many leave.
When it's all rational debate, the coldness is felt. People feel attacked and leave. Unless, one still feels safe and has some deeper relational connection. And even then, the debates of the sort often had on this board can run a person dry.

Of course, there are many people like us who do love to connect intellectually and go through some hard thinking.
Craig has around him I'm sure very like-minded people. But they're people who talk the same logical in your head language. In my real life experience, many people aren't this way. I'm often incapable of communicating many things to a lay person. I once felt they should be interested and make an effort to understand, but they probably similarly thought I'm so intellectually stagnant and need to get out more.

Anyway, just offering up my own thoughts.

From the board purpose:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=1&t=2517

This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defence and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people and seekers.

Who is the message board intended for?
This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register and participate in discussions, however it is ultimately intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:


1. Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;
2. Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction;
and
3. Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and reason sensitively and respectfully.

I believe K wrote this, so maybe he can speak to what was intended when it was written. But is seems to me the purpose for this forum is to be an apologetics forum, as well as a forum for encouragement and instruction.

Just read the underlined.

If a member wants to use the board primarily as an apologetics forum, that's fine. There are apologetic forums.

If a member wants to use the board primarily as a way to offer encouragement and or instruction, that's fine also. There are forums for that too.
If someone isn't interested in a certain thread, simply don't post there. But, everyone has different reasons for being here. I think the forum offers something for just about everyone. And of course we are open to suggestions, if offered in the proper way.
Nobody is trying to keep anyone from giving their opinion. But please do it respectfully.

Fwiw,

I'll address jlay's points from the op.

Review and revise the board rules for starting posts and participating in the discussion forum.
This has happened on the forum several times in the past. You get a new participant and they, for whatever reason, feel compelled to start a thread on every subject that crosses their mind. Nohting personal, but I don't care what color socks your where or what's your favorite Keanu Reeves movie.

If someone doesn't care about Keanu Reeves movies, then simply don't post in the thread. Different things interest different people. If someone starts a thread that nobody is interested in, the thread goes unanswered, and simply slips down in the forum.

This is first and foremost and apologetics forum. I've spent less and less time here because quite frankly I can get better and more meaningful content and discussion on forums that are either better moderated, or open only to Christians who are working to seriously develop their apologetic acumen.

As I showed from the board purpose in my previous post, I don't think this is primarily an apologetics forum. And again, from the board purpose, this forum is not open only to Christians who are trying to learn apologetics.

A big culprit you see is people just sharing links and asking, "what do you think?" There is no development of an idea or how it relates to apologetics.

And some people just want to know what other people think about a video or link they came across. Not everybody has the same interest or ability to discuss something from an apologetics point of view.

I don't say this to be mean, but seriously guys, it's a mess. When i come here I'll use the 'active topics' search to see what is being currently discussed. Right now the board is being swamped under by David Stones. Now, maybe he's a good guy, I don't know. But his postings are muddying up the forum to the point where it is hard to find any meaningful content and discussion.

I'll say it again. If someone doesn't like a thread, don't post in it, and move on.
It's not only an apologetics board. And since I've been here (2010), it hasn't been. If that's not your cup of tea, simply post more apologetics topics, or find another board that suits your interests.

To some people, this board is a big part of their communication with other believers. To some, it may be the only place they have any meaningful discussions, and fellowship with other believers.

K suggested great thing. To create new forum "Friendly Idle Talk" and those who are not interested in seeing it in Active Topic I would just remove permissions for them for the forum.

Thing is if to create new forum at all or jlay wants to unsubscribe from the General-Chit-Chat.

I'd think a new forum, as people often introduce themselves in General Chit-Chat... but I guess they'd otherwise be quite similar.

I will create new forum.

I don't know that jlay wouldn't ever want to see the general chit-chat forum or any proposed friendly idle talk. I think his concern was just that, at least right now, a series of topics from that particular forum were the ones mostly populating the active topics button. Per my idea above, seems to me a simple solution would be to just not have the active topics code call up topics from the general chit-chat forum. But, I could be wrong. That could be terribly complicated. I'm not a coder. My assumption is that somewhere in the active topics code there's some sort of subroutine that just looks at each forum. My thought was just either delete the line having it look at the general chit-chat forum or else have a yes/no variable in each forum and add a line to the button's code so that it only checks that forum if the variable is yes/on. But, again, that could be way more complicated than I make it sound. Because I promise you, I am now talking WAY over my pay grade.

I created new forum. In the control panel i had option to set the forum not being displayed in active topics.
That should solve the rpoblem.
Let me now move some threads there.

Generally, you don't want to manually change code but work within the system.
Otherwise such changes need to be re-made in every update and/or bugs can creep in.
Not to mention small changes can mean a lot of work, especially if they're very specific.

Unless there is an easy to install mod, that is kept up-to-date,
it can be quite a headache from an admin and maintenance point of view.

That said, it might be possible to allow users to self subscribe/unsubscribe from the User Group.
That means they could control the setting from within the Profile Settings as to whether or not they see posts within such forums.
Or, if they log out, then they will get to see the posts by default.

User Groups is really the only way I can see to work within the phpBB system, which is why I recommended it to Hana.
This would also control which posts will not appear to users in Active Posts, Recent Posts, etc.